In
a case that's almost guaranteed to have repercussions throughout the
country, California appellate judges ruled that one family's children
could not be homeschooled and must attend a government school
or accredited private school.

The
court's decision is the result of a civil case brought against Phillip
and Mary Long regarding the education they provided to two of their
children. The Longs currently have eight children in their home, all
of whom they've homeschooled.

Phillip
Long told NewsWithViews.com
that he and his wife will probably appeal the decision to California's
Supreme Court, since they've homeschooled all of their children, the
oldest now 29, because of various anti-Christian influences in California's
public schools.

"Homeschooling
is endowed upon parents by our Creator. The state of California or
the federal government have no right to tell parents how their children
should be taught," said Phil Long in a telephone interview with NewsWithViews.com.

This
latest court decision granted a petition brought by attorneys retained
by so-called "child advocates" to represent the two youngest Long
children after the family's homeschooling was brought to their attention.

However,
the Long's children did not have any say in their representation by
these attorneys. While the lawyers claimed to be representing the
interests of the children, they actually were representing the California
education establishment and the teachers union the NEA. Critics say
this is proof positive that in the eyes of bureaucrats parents and
families have no rights regarding their childrens education.

According
to information provided by Phil Long, the trial court had found that
keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where they
could interact with people outside the family. They also stated that
there are people in the public school system who could provide help
if there's a problem in the lives of pupils. A judge in the case also
said that children in government schools could develop emotionally
in a broader world than the parents' "cloistered" setting.

The
appeals ruling stated that California's law mandates that "persons
between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time
day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private
full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a
valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

The
panel of judges ruled that the Long family failed to demonstrate "that
[the] mother has a teaching credential such that the children can
be said to be receiving an education from a credentialed tutor," and
that their involvement and supervision by Sunland Christian School's
independent study programs was of no value.

According
to the Longs, the family's religious beliefs were not given ample
weight in the case.

The
court claimed the Longs' "sincerely held religious beliefs" are "not
the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of
California's compulsory public school education law to them violates
their First Amendment rights. Such sparse representations are too
easily asserted by any parent who wishes to homeschool his or her
child," the court concluded.

Phillip
Long said his family is working on ways to appeal to the California
Supreme Court, because he will not permit the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual,
pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools to indoctrinate
his children.

"We
just don't want them teaching our children. They teach things that
are totally contrary to what we believe. They put questions in our
children's minds we don't feel they're ready for," said Mr. Long during
the telephone interview with NWV.

"We're
going to appeal to a higher court. I don't want to put my children
in a public school that teaches ideologies I don't believe in," he
said.

"Children
belong to the parents, not to the state," Long said. He also acknowledged
that there's a great deal of misinformation about the status of homeschooling
in California.

Many
observers believe this is merely the beginning of a movement to totally
ban homeschoolng because the California Legislature and Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger worked together to establish Senate Bill 777 and Assembly
Bill 394 as a law that institutionalizes the promotion of homosexuality,
bisexuality, transgenderism and other alternative lifestyle choices
within the public school system.

Advertisement

"The
reason homeschoolers are under attack is obvious. NEA and the Homosexual
lobby wants them in public schools to indoctrinate them. Homeschooled
children are not brainwashed with homosexuality, the myth of global
warming, globalism, etc. Homeschooled children are still innocent
and that can't be allowed. Therefore, attacks on homeschoolers will
undauntedly escalate across the country unless the Christian community
wakes up," said conservative strategist Mike Baker.

"[California]
law at first allowed public schools to voluntarily promote homosexuality,
bisexuality and transsexuality. Then, the law required public schools
to accept homosexual, bisexual and transsexual teachers as role models
for impressionable children. Now, the law has been changed to effectively
require the positive portrayal of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality
to 6 million children in California government-controlled schools,"
said one homeschooling advocate.

There
are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative
lifestyles and beliefs, however. Offenders will face the wrath of
the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits, according
to legal experts.

"SB
777 results in reverse discrimination against students with religious
and traditional family values. These students have lost their voice
as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision.
The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination
against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," said
Baker.

"Having
'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either
get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about
[parental issues]," he said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative
lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

"I
shudder to think how millions of California children will be led astray,
how marriage will be destroyed, and how immorality will step on the
neck of morality if Arnold Schwarzenegger signs five anti-family bills
into law. The 'Terminator' has less than two weeks to sign or veto
very bad bills!" said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign
for Children and Families, in a previous
article.

Advertisement

Thomasson
is disappointed with California's Christian pastors and elders. In
the last five days, many individuals and several businesses have responded
to CCF's action alert. However, to date, only one church has faxed
in veto letters to the liberal Schwarzenegger's office in Sacramento.

"This
is not right, since the majority of pastors in California oppose sexual
indoctrination of schoolchildren (SB 777 and AB 394), oppose demeaning
marriage (AB 43 and AB 102), and oppose forcing the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual
agenda on businesses, organizations, and churches (AB 14)," said Thomasson.

"Distracted
drivers cause car accidents; distracted pastors may accidentally assist
anti-family bills to be signed into law. The Governor will notice
our loud voice or our relative silence. The choice is [ours]," he
added.

"Young
children will be led astray, the definition of marriage will be irreparably
harmed, and cherished freedom of conscience will be trampled if Arnold
Schwarzenegger signs these bad bills into law," said Thomasson.

"Too
many Americans find themselves without church leadership on social
issues that threaten the very foundation of western civilization,"
said conservative activist Michael Baker.

"More
and more Americans are asking 'Where are the pastors? Where is the
moral leadership?'" Baker added.

Advertisement

Mike
Baker said he believes most church pastors and conservative political
leaders are cowards who fear the wrath of the mainstream news media
and the venom of liberal-left activists.

"Pastors
especially have allowed themselves to be bullied by people who are
no better than heathens. Conservative politcians fear the bad press
they would get from the likes of the New York Times and Washington
Post," Baker said.

"Private
citizens are doing the work that pastors and church leaders should
be doing in fighting the good fight on behalf of our most vulnerable
citizens -- American children," Baker added.

Hearing
about the Long's dilemma, one California homeschooling mother [who
wished to remain anonymous] said that she went to her pastor asking
for the church's involvement exposing the courts determination to
end homeschooling in the state, and was told to her dismay that the
church would not get involved citing Romans 13. She was told "We'll
pray on it." I also prayed, which led me to come to you for help,
she replied.

Exodus
Mandate, a national advocacy group that urges parents to remove their
children from the public school systems, has launched a California
affiliate in the wake of passage of SB 777. The California
Exodus project has been
endorsed by a coalition of Christian organizations.

California
isn't the only state beginning to clamp down on homeschooling families.
For instance, in Oregon the state legislature has made grumblings
about children not under their control because they are homeschooled
and not exposed to indoctrination, according to public education critics.

One
man who has been at the forefront of fighting for parents rights is
Jack Alan Brown, a key figure in the Constitution
Party of Oregon. An avowed conservative, Brown set out to collect
signatures on a petition that would lead to a referendum placed on
Oregon's election ballot. The referendum would ensure that parents'
rights to educate their own children would be recognized by the state
as sacrosanct.

"I
believe that the phrase 'parental rights' involves two critical ingredients
-- one is stated and the other is implied: parents and offspring.
It links those two ingredients in a relationship that has rights imputed
to one party of that relationship without denying that the other party
has rights as well, i.e., saying that we believe in parental rights
does not mean that only parents have rights, said Brown.

"Parental
rights is a plural phrase, because it has numerous aspects. Parents
have the right to honor and obedience from their offspring, but the
passing on of their value system to their offspring is not only a
right, it is a responsibility. Providing shelter and sustenance is
a responsibility. Developing the moral character of one's offspring
is not only a right it is a responsibility. Developing skills of one's
offspring for survival as an adult is not only a right it is a responsibility.
To interfere with the exercise of one's responsibility is as dastardly
as interfering with the exercise of one's rights," he said.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Brown
adds, "The majority of the participating voters of this state, through
initiatives and through their elected representatives, have forcibly
taken away the rights of parents to oversee the upbringing of their
children, and have also restricted their rights to contract. We can
only remedy the situation when we repeal all compulsory education
statutes and eliminate mandatory public financing of education."

Unfortunately,
Brown fell short on the number of signatures collected. But he's vowed
to continue to fight for parents' rights and the rights of children
to be free from indoctrination.

However,
the Long's children did not have any say in their representation by these
attorneys. While the lawyers claimed to be representing the interests
of the children, they actually were representing the California education
establishment.